Something that has confused me about Fukushima is the public’s reaction. When the banks screwed up there was a massive backlash. When Fukushima went tits up the general consensus seemed to be, oh well no one died and we need energy.

But this view point is missing the glaringly obvious conclusion we should be drawing from Fukushima. The nuclear industry has a big straw man it can attack. Health, they are more than happy for the media to concentrate on this as it’s not a real issue.

What Fukushima shows us is the fact that nuclear isn't commercially viable without government funding and insurance. Fukushima will cost the Japanese government billions upon billions to clean up after they had already ploughed millions into it to get it up and running and eventually decommissioned. So why are we not as disgusted with the nuclear industry as we are with the banks?

It’s not like we have another option with the banks, but with nuclear we do and what’s more nuclear is a dead end. It’s not the answer to our energy requirements, it will never be commercially viable, it’s becoming less and less so and it’s a finite resource.

(Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
Something that has confused me about Fukushima is the public’s reaction. When the banks screwed up there was a massive backlash. When Fukushima went tits up the general consensus seemed to be, oh well no one died and we need energy.

But this view point is missing the glaringly obvious conclusion we should be drawing from Fukushima. The nuclear industry has a big straw man it can attack. Health, they are more than happy for the media to concentrate on this as it’s not a real issue.

What Fukushima shows us is the fact that nuclear isn't commercially viable without government funding and insurance. Fukushima will cost the Japanese government billions upon billions to clean up after they had already ploughed millions into it to get it up and running and eventually decommissioned. So why are we not as disgusted with the nuclear industry as we are with the banks?

It’s not like we have another option with the banks, but with nuclear we do and what’s more nuclear is a dead end. It’s not the answer to our energy requirements, it will never be commercially viable, it’s becoming less and less so and it’s a finite resource.

So why are we so happy to plough money into a failed industry?

Nuclear isn't a dead industry. Nuclear is self-sustaining and financially viable with modern reactor designs. In the UK, the aim is for the Private Sector to operate the forthcoming new fleet of reactors without investment from the Government. The technology has substantially matured enough since we started pissing about with the old, relatively "dirty" (and thus costly to decommission) Magnox and AGR reactors that decommissioning costs are far far lower with modern designs, so there's not this costly multi-decade legacy.

We shouldn't criticise TEPCO, or the Japanese Authorities for a natural disaster that substantially exceeded the designed endurance limits for the plant. In fact, it's a testament to the designs of these reactors that they're still largely intact.

Nuclear is, and should be, a big part of the energy mix for the UK for the foreseeable future. Renewables just don't cut the mustard, I'm afraid. They have their place, just as Nuclear does. Anyone that suggests that the UK can muddle through this energy crisis without Nuclear energy, whilst maintaining our commitments to reduce CO2 emissions over the next 40 years, needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

Uranium is a finite resource, sure, but with a resource lifetime in excess of a millennium based on it's consumption rate by inefficient last-generation reactors it's not our problem, our children's problem, their children's problem, their children's children's problem and so on. Not only that, but it can be largely reprocessed into more fuel after it's been spent. Then there's alternative reactor designs coming to the fore like Thorium reactors; Thorium is considerably more abundant than Uranium and produces substantially less nuclear waste.

The nuclear industry in this country is not too big to fail, however it has had no cause to fail yet and nor should it - it's a robust private industry. In fact EDF thought that it was worth buying out the entirety of British Nuclear a few years ago, so they must be doing something right.

Fission is the only way you're going to solve our energy needs short of carpeting the entirety of the British EEZ with offshore wind and wave farms, and that's not an option. Renewables have their place as part of the solution but we will never be able to harness all the energy we need from wind, wave and tidal power.

(Original post by Mad Vlad)
Nuclear isn't a dead industry. Nuclear is self-sustaining and financially viable with modern reactor designs. In the UK, the aim is for the Private Sector to operate the forthcoming new fleet of reactors without investment from the Government. The technology has substantially matured enough since we started pissing about with the old, relatively "dirty" (and thus costly to decommission) Magnox and AGR reactors that decommissioning costs are far far lower with modern designs, so there's not this costly multi-decade legacy.

The Government may not be providing investment for the new fleet of reactors to be constructed but will always be responsible for the insurance in the event of another Fukushima.

(Original post by Mad Vlad)
We shouldn't criticise TEPCO, or the Japanese Authorities for a natural disaster that substantially exceeded the designed endurance limits for the plant.

Yes we should, it was entirely forseable and the designed endurance limits for the plant not up to scatch.

(Original post by Mad Vlad)
In fact, it's a testament to the designs of these reactors that they're still largely intact.

(Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
Uranium is a finite resource, sure, but with a resource lifetime in excess of a millennium based on it's consumption rate by inefficient last-generation reactors it's not our problem, our children's problem, their children's problem, their children's children's problem and so on. Not only that, but it can be largely reprocessed into more fuel after it's been spent. Then there's alternative reactor designs coming to the fore like Thorium reactors; Thorium is considerably more abundant than Uranium and produces substantially less nuclear waste..

Which will vastly increase prices and make it even less commercially viable.

(Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
The Government may not be providing investment for the new fleet of reactors to be constructed but will always be responsible for the insurance in the event of another Fukushima.

Yes we should, it was entirely forseable and the designed endurance limits for the plant not up to scatch.

They are far from intact and its going to cost billions.

Well if you can predict Tsunamis you may want to share that with the Japanese government.

If the general public were not so ignorant of nuclear power then you would not be referring to a future nuclear accident as another Fukushima. The fact that people were expecting a nuclear explosion or another Chernobyl proves this.

(Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
So why are we so happy to plough money into a failed industry?

Except Nuclear is not a failed industry.

As you have admitted, its when there is a huge natural disaster where problems arise. That fact is not limited to Nuclear. Many different industries and people and place will need government help in a natural disaster.

(Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
Which will vastly increase prices and make it even less commercially viable.

The cost of nuclear plants isn't in the fuel - you can buy a kilo of uranium for bugger all. The cost is in hiring and training nuclear specialists, safety procedures, waste reprocessing and building the reactor vessel. The $:MW ratio of investment in nuclear schemes actually suggests that you get more bang for your buck in building nuclear plants than renewables, it's just that wind and wave schemes are widely distributed and each scheme contributes less than any nuclear plant so it's hard to compare the two; nuclear power is also obviously more reliable than most renewable sources, because you can have it on all the time. That's a factor often forgotten in comparing renewable and nuclear power.

Renewables are either too inconsistent (wind), too hard to harness (wave) or too ecologically damaging (tidal barrages, biomass) to be anything more than a false economy if we employed them on their own. Obviously fossil fuels aren't really an option. Fission is a necessity, but some diversity in energy supply is needed so I support renewables being the other half of our energy future alongside nuclear.

The fact that you've just breezed in here on your first day to criticise nuclear power somewhat betrays your true intentions, it has to be said.

(Original post by Aj12)
Well if you can predict Tsunamis you may want to share that with the Japanese government.

It was designed for tsunamis in mind they foresaw this happening, they underestimated it. This maybe acceptable if it weren't for Japans history of tsunamis and recent events such as the Boxing Day tsunami. With decommissioning factored in the chances were Fukushima would have been there in some capacity for many number years to come making the likelihood of it being hit by such an event all the more likely.

(Original post by Aj12)
If the general public were not so ignorant of nuclear power then you would not be referring to a future nuclear accident as another Fukushima. The fact that people were expecting a nuclear explosion or another Chernobyl proves this.

(Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
The Government may not be providing investment for the new fleet of reactors to be constructed but will always be responsible for the insurance in the event of another Fukushima.

I wonder, when was the last time we got hit by a tsunami in England?

There have been THREE yes count it THREE major nuclear failures in history. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. If that's a failed industry why are we subsidising the likes of oil and gas when there are incidents around the globe on a near enough yearly basis?

Yes we should, it was entirely forseable and the designed endurance limits for the plant not up to scatch.

Fukushima was built in the 1970's... compared to modern designed plants (which survived the earthquake/tsunami just fine) yes it wasn't up to scratch, but it still did a pretty good job.

(Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
The Government may not be providing investment for the new fleet of reactors to be constructed but will always be responsible for the insurance in the event of another Fukushima.

Government Insurance Liability? [Citation Needed]

I was under the impression that you can't insure a Nuclear Power Plant, and the operator takes out 3rd party insurance to protect itself should an accident happen.

Yes we should, it was entirely forseable and the designed endurance limits for the plant not up to scatch.

Nonsense. It was unreasonable to expect the scale of the disaster. In fact, the plant failed because it lost power due to the Tsunami. The plant was designed to endure a 5.7m high Tsunami. The scale of the earthquake that occurred on 11th March was over 5 times more powerful than was designed for and the reactor survived that without a problem - I repeat, it's a testament to the over-engineering of these plants that the plant survived an earthquake that far exceeded its design. The only bit of engineering that failed was the location of the Diesel generators and the height of the sea wall.

Tsunami are not a concern in the UK.

They are far from intact and its going to cost billions.

You are aware that the buildings that have been destroyed are little more than sheds? This is superficial damage. The actual reactors themselves are intact. They have not melted down. The Reactor Pressure Vessels appear to have not been breached. The reactors were coming to the end of their life anyway, so decommissioning was inevitable and the authorities may simply decide to de-fuel the reactors and mothball them, as in Three Mile Island unit 2.

(Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
The cost of nuclear plants isn't in the fuel - you can buy a kilo of uranium for bugger all. The cost is in hiring and training nuclear specialists, safety procedures, waste reprocessing and building the reactor vessel. The $:MW ratio of investment in nuclear schemes actually suggests that you get more bang for your buck in building nuclear plants than renewables, it's just that wind and wave schemes are widely distributed and each scheme contributes less than any nuclear plant so it's hard to compare the two; nuclear power is also obviously more reliable than most renewable sources, because you can have it on all the time. That's a factor often forgotten in comparing renewable and nuclear power.

Renewables are either too inconsistent (wind), too hard to harness (wave) or too ecologically damaging (tidal barrages, biomass) to be anything more than a false economy if we employed them on their own. Obviously fossil fuels aren't really an option. Fission is a necessity, but some diversity in energy supply is needed so I support renewables being the other half of our energy future alongside nuclear.

The fact that you've just breezed in here on your first day to criticise nuclear power somewhat betrays your true intentions, it has to be said.

The biggest cost of the nuclear industry is by far the red tape and regulation.

It's also worth emphasising that the Nuclear Industry is arguably the safest industry in the world.

(Original post by @*=-+1!<>6)
It was designed for tsunamis in mind they foresaw this happening, they underestimated it. This maybe acceptable if it weren't for Japans history of tsunamis and recent events such as the Boxing Day tsunami. With decommissioning factored in the chances were Fukushima would have been there in some capacity for many number years to come making the likelihood of it being hit by such an event all the more likely.

Yes but not the most powerful earthquake in 1000 years (may have been 100 but still). The Tsunami that hit was something like 10 feet higher than their defenses. This has been one of the worst disasters to ever hit Japan.

This is not an accident that can happen if any of the other Jap plants.

I was under the impression that you can't insure a Nuclear Power Plant, and the operator takes out 3rd party insurance to protect itself should an accident happen.

Limited to a few hundered million. Anything more falls onto the government.

(Original post by Mad Vlad)
You are aware that the buildings that have been destroyed are little more than sheds? This is superficial damage. The actual reactors themselves are intact. They have not melted down. The Reactor Pressure Vessels appear to have not been breached. The reactors were coming to the end of their life anyway, so decommissioning was inevitable and the authorities may simply decide to de-fuel the reactors and mothball them, as in Three Mile Island unit 2.

Well its not superficial damage is it? They are unrecoverable. It also doesn't change the huge cost a little "superficial damage" will impose on the Japanese.